Conflict Resolution Ladder
Download this template
Generated 2026-08-31 · Download all templates
Conflict Classification
What kinds of conflict do we have names for, so nobody invents one mid-argument — and which are safety-critical?
RCOS clauses 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.5, 6.5.3, 6.6.4, 6.7.1
- 6.1.1 The community MUST define an explicit conflict classification system that is known, accessible, and usable by all members.
- 6.1.2 At minimum, the classification system MUST include the following classes:
- 6.1.3 Each conflict class MUST explicitly define:
- 6.1.4 Conflicts involving credible safety risks, coercion, abuse, or threats MUST be classified as safety-critical and MUST trigger elevated safeguards as defined in Section 6.3.
- 6.1.5 Misclassification or avoidance of classification MUST be treated as a process failure subject to review.
- 6.5.3 The Conflict Resolution Ladder MUST define, at minimum:
- 6.6.4 Physical, psychological, and child safety MUST override participation rights, role continuity, and reputational concerns.
- 6.7.1 The following MUST be explicit:
Why classify conflicts at all?
Without named classes, every dispute gets treated the same — or worse, treated differently based on who is involved. Explicit classes set the entry point, the response window, and the documentation burden up front, so safety-critical matters cannot be quietly routed through a friendly chat and minor friction cannot be weaponized into a formal review.
How to fill this in
For each class, set entry criteria, the entry step in the ladder, the initial response window, and the documentation burden.
| Class | Entry criteria | Entry point | Initial response window | Documentation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <Interpersonal> | <member-to-member friction> | <Step 1> | <window> | <from which step> |
| <Role-based> | <role-performance dispute> | <...> | <...> | <...> |
| <Structural> | <governance-process dispute> | <...> | <...> | <...> |
| <Ethical / obligation breach> | <...> | <...> | <...> | <...> |
| <Safety-critical> | <credible safety risk, coercion, abuse, or threats> | <bypasses earlier steps> | <short window> | <from intake; immediate action permitted> |
> Safety-critical conflicts override participation rights, role continuity, and operational convenience.
What to cover
- Which kinds of conflict do we name — at least interpersonal, role-based, structural and ethical?
- Which situations are safety-critical, and what changes for them?
- For each kind: how do we recognise it, how quickly must we respond, and which path does it take?
- For each kind: what gets written down? (Who may read it is its own question.)
- What happens when a conflict is put in the wrong kind, or nobody classifies it?
Examples
We name five kinds of conflict: between people, about a role, about our rules or structures, about a breach of our agreements, and safety-critical. A conflict is safety-critical whenever someone credibly fears for their safety or is being coerced; it skips the early steps and our safety measures apply at once. Everyday conflicts get a reply within 14 days and start with a private conversation; the others start with the conflict coordinator, who records the kind and the reason. A conflict nobody has classified within a week is reviewed as a process failure.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Resolution Ladder Steps
What are the steps from a quiet word to a formal process, and in what order?
RCOS clauses 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.5.3, 6.6.1
- 6.2.1 The community MUST define a minimum conflict resolution process applicable to all conflict classes.
- 6.2.2 The resolution process MUST include a clearly defined resolution ladder with explicit escalation steps.
- 6.2.3 The resolution ladder MUST define, at minimum:
- 6.2.4 The resolution process MUST be accessible without requiring social status, seniority, charisma, or informal proximity to decision-makers.
- 6.2.5 Unresolved conflicts MUST escalate through defined governance pathways without bypassing the Decision Matrix defined in Layer 2.
- 6.5.3 The Conflict Resolution Ladder MUST define, at minimum:
- 6.6.1 Conflict MUST be treated as a handled condition with defined pathways; ignoring, suppressing, or normalizing unresolved conflict MUST be considered a system violation.
Why a stepped ladder instead of a single process?
Most conflict is low-stakes and best resolved between the people involved; forcing everything into formal review would kill trust and flood the governance system. A ladder matches process weight to dispute weight — private conversation first, facilitated dialogue next, written record only when needed, governance vote only when all else fails. It also makes escalation a structural right, not a favour granted by whoever holds social power.
How to fill this in
Define each ladder step: who is involved, what happens, the time window, and the escalation rule. Keep the early steps light and confidential; reserve formal review for later steps.
- Direct conversation — <parties attempt to resolve privately; window; outcome rules.>
- Facilitated dialogue — <facilitator hosts conversation; confidentiality; window; outcome rules.>
- Accountability intake — <formal written record opened; submissions; window; outcome rules.>
- Accountability review — <structured review; both parties present; written recommendation; window; outcome rules.>
- Governance decision — <minimum-necessary disclosure to Full Members; deliberation period; vote mechanism and threshold.>
- Separation process — <coordinated with the Exit & Separation Protocol; minimum re-application block.>
What to cover
- For each step, from a private conversation to a governance decision: who is involved, what happens, and how long does it take?
- How is a conflict raised, written down and acknowledged — and how are the other people involved told and invited to take part?
- When does a conflict move up to the next step, and can either side ask for that themselves?
- When nothing else resolves it, how does it reach a decision through our Decision Matrix — with no shortcut around it?
- How do we make sure anyone can use the ladder, whatever their standing, seniority or friendships?
- What do we do when a conflict is being ignored or quietly buried? (Non-response and deadlock, choosing a facilitator, and who may read the records are their own questions.)
Examples
Step 1: the people involved talk privately within two weeks. Step 2: either may ask for a facilitator, who hosts a conversation within three weeks. Step 3: either may open a written case with the Conflict Coordinator, who logs and acknowledges it within 7 days and invites the other side. Step 4: a panel of three members hears both sides and recommends within 30 days. Step 5: the Full Members decide under the Decision Matrix. Any member may start or move up the ladder; leaving a known conflict unaddressed is a breach.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Non-Response, Withdrawal, and Deadlock
What happens when somebody will not take part, walks out, or we simply get stuck?
RCOS clauses 6.2.5, 6.1.5
What stops a process from being killed by silence?
The easiest way to defeat any accountability process is to ignore it. If non-response, withdrawal, or deadlock leaves the matter frozen, the party on the receiving end of harm carries the cost of the inaction. Explicit rules for each failure mode convert silence into a documented escalation trigger rather than a veto.
How to fill this in
Define how non-response, mid-process withdrawal, deadlock, and procedural failure are handled. Each should have a documented escalation path.
If a party does not respond within the defined window:
- <Follow-up notice; additional grace period; treatment of continued silence as non-resolution; escalation rule.>
If a party withdraws mid-process:
- <Notification of withdrawal; option for the other party to close or request a written summary; escalation rule for outstanding accountability matters.>
Deadlock (all resolution attempts exhausted):
- <Documentation of the deadlock; escalation to governance decision.>
Procedural failure review:
- <How procedural objections are raised; where they are logged; trigger for review of this artifact under the Change Protocol.>
What to cover
- If someone does not respond: how many reminders do they get, over how long, before silence counts as non-resolution — and what happens next?
- If someone withdraws partway through: how is the other side told, and may they close the matter or ask for a written summary?
- When someone withdraws, what happens to any accountability matter that is still open?
- When we are stuck, how is the deadlock written down and taken to a governance decision?
- How does someone object that the process itself went wrong, where is that logged, and when does it lead to a review of this ladder?
Examples
If someone does not reply within 14 days, the facilitator sends a second notice with 14 more days; continued silence counts as non-resolution and the case moves up a step. If someone withdraws, the other party is told within 7 days and may close the matter or ask for a written summary; any open accountability matter continues. A written-up deadlock goes to the Full Members. Objections to the process go in the conflict log, and three in one year start a review of this ladder.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Facilitator Selection and Replacement
Who facilitates a conflict, and how does either side get them replaced?
RCOS clauses 6.3.1, 6.3.3
Why name how the Facilitator is chosen or replaced?
A facilitator who is implicated in the conflict — or socially aligned with one party — cannot hold the process fairly, no matter how good their intentions. Naming selection and replacement rules up front means the affected party does not have to fight for a neutral hearing while already under stress.
How to fill this in
State the default facilitator role, the rule when the facilitator is a party, the right to decline, and any provision for external facilitation.
- <Default facilitator role per the Role Registry.>
- <Rule when the facilitator is a party — selection of a neutral substitute.>
- <Right of either party to decline a facilitator with stated conflict of interest.>
- <Optional external facilitation by mutual agreement.>
What to cover
- Who facilitates by default — which role in our Role Registry?
- When the facilitator is involved in the conflict, or close to one side, who chooses a neutral substitute and how?
- How can either side decline a facilitator, and what reason do they have to give?
- When may we bring in someone from outside, who has to agree, and who pays?
Examples
The Conflict Steward named in the Role Registry facilitates by default. If they are a party, or share a household with one, each party names one member and those two choose a neutral facilitator together. Either party may decline a facilitator by stating a conflict of interest, and a replacement is found within 10 days. If both parties agree, we invite an external mediator, paid from the shared fund.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Privacy and Information Access Boundaries
Who is allowed to know what about a conflict, while it runs and afterwards?
RCOS clauses 6.5.3
- 6.5.3 The Conflict Resolution Ladder MUST define, at minimum:
Why bound information flow so tightly?
Conflict records contain the most sensitive material the community holds. Leaks, gossip, or casual disclosure cause second-order harm and deter future reporting. Explicit boundaries — what stays with the parties, what reaches Full Members, and when records are destroyed — make confidentiality enforceable rather than aspirational.
How to fill this in
State which steps are fully confidential, what minimum information may be disclosed at the governance step, the retention period, and the non-disclosure obligation.
- <Steps 1–4: fully confidential; only parties and Facilitator may access records.>
- <Steps 5–6: minimum necessary information disclosed to Full Members; parties notified before disclosure. Define what "minimum necessary" means.>
- <Record retention: who holds records, for how long, then destroyed.>
- <Non-disclosure: no participant may share information about the process outside the defined participants without written consent of all parties.>
What to cover
- Which steps are fully confidential, and who may see the records during them?
- When a conflict reaches a governance decision, what is the least the Full Members need to know — and are the people involved told before anything is shared?
- Who holds the records, for how long, and how are they destroyed?
- What may participants tell people outside the process, and whose consent changes that?
Examples
Steps 1 to 4 are fully confidential: only the parties and the facilitator may see the notes. If a case reaches the Full Members, they receive only what they need to decide — what the conflict is about, which steps were tried, and the options — and the parties see that summary three days before it is shared. The facilitator keeps the records for three years after the case closes, then deletes them. No participant may discuss the case outside the process without the written consent of all parties.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Safeguards
What changes when the people in a conflict do not have equal power — or when someone is not safe?
RCOS clauses 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.3.5, 6.6.2
- 6.3.1 The community MUST define explicit safeguards for conflicts involving power asymmetries, dependency relationships, or safety risks.
- 6.3.2 Safeguards MUST include protections against retaliation for:
- 6.3.3 Where a power differential exists between parties, elevated safeguards MUST be applied, which MAY include:
- 6.3.4 For safety-critical conflicts, the community MUST define immediate protective actions that may be taken prior to full process completion, which MAY include:
- 6.3.5 Safety safeguards MUST override participation rights, role continuity, and operational convenience.
- 6.6.2 Conflicts involving power asymmetries MUST trigger elevated safeguards.
Why do safeguards exist on top of the ladder?
Process alone does not protect the party with less power. Retaliation, bad-faith complaints, conflicted facilitators, and unreviewed safety risks can all neutralize an otherwise good procedure. Safeguards are the backstops that keep the ladder functional when incentives push against honest reporting.
How to fill this in
For each safeguard, state the rule and the consequence when it is violated. Power-differential cases need their own intake channel.
- Anti-retaliation: <retaliation against a member raising a conflict in good faith is itself grounds for an accountability process.>
- Bad-faith complaints: <deliberately false complaints may trigger an accountability process against the complainant.>
- Facilitator conflict of interest: <see Facilitator Selection and Replacement.>
- Process pause: <either party may pause once for up to X days by written notice.>
- Safety-critical immediate action: <facilitator may recommend a temporary access restriction pending review; review window.>
- Power differential — separate intake channel: <where a power differential exists, the affected member may submit intake directly to a body other than the standard Facilitator.>
- Role suspension during review: <Full Members may temporarily suspend a role holder's delegated authority during review without constituting forced exit.>
What to cover
- What extra protection applies when the people in a conflict do not have equal power — for example independent facilitation, or a separate way to raise it?
- When someone is not safe, what may we do at once, before the process ends — and who decides?
- How do we make sure safety comes before participation rights, roles and convenience?
Examples
When the people in a conflict have unequal power — a role holder and a newer member, say — the less powerful person may raise it with an outside facilitator instead of our conflict steward, and the role holder's authority over them is paused while it runs. If someone credibly reports being unsafe, any two stewards may at once separate the people involved, restrict access to shared spaces or suspend a role for up to 14 days, before the process ends. Safety comes first, even when it costs someone a role or is inconvenient.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Ratification Record
- Adopted: <YYYY-MM-DD>
- Decision type: Strategic
- Version: <version>
- Decision record: <link to decision record>